Appeal No. 1999-0231 Application No. 08/472,354 disparate teachings of Fellow’s Figure 1 and Figure 4 embodiments or for modifying either the Figure 1 or the Figure 4 embodiment of Fellows in view of Arkell stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the appellants’ own disclosure. The use of such hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We have reviewed the Tittgemeyer, Vrotacoe and Fischer references applied along with Fellows and Arkell by the examiner against claim 1 on appeal and the Smith reference applied along with Fellows, Arkell, Tittgemeyer, Vrotacoe and Fischer against claim 6. However, we find nothing in these additional references which makes up for the deficiencies of Fellows and Arkell discussed above. In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the standing § 103 rejections of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3 and 5 through 7. 14Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007